Very cool article, but… Fifty scientific fields? A major overkill, imho. I doubt there are twenty.
Also, linguistics… well, linguists rarely agree on anything but most of us do agree that Blumfield-style descriptivism was wrong (though I was recently startled to find a French linguist using almost precisely their arguments, but that is an outlier). Of course, one may say that it is counting evidence twice, as some kind of link to behaviourism is obvious, but their going down in flames in linguistics (thanks, Chomsky! And… thanks, weird guys like Langacker and Givόn, I gue-ess?) kinda predated their failure in psychology.
Very cool article, but… Fifty scientific fields? A major overkill, imho. I doubt there are twenty.
Also, linguistics… well, linguists rarely agree on anything but most of us do agree that Blumfield-style descriptivism was wrong (though I was recently startled to find a French linguist using almost precisely their arguments, but that is an outlier). Of course, one may say that it is counting evidence twice, as some kind of link to behaviourism is obvious, but their going down in flames in linguistics (thanks, Chomsky! And… thanks, weird guys like Langacker and Givόn, I gue-ess?) kinda predated their failure in psychology.